3 ms·

If its FOSS you also have to convince other contributors to work your choice of license. The first example in the article is Wordpress whose developers did not

If its FOSS you also have to convince other contributors to work your choice of license. The first example in the article is Wordpress whose developers did not get to chose the license because they forked an existing GPL project. > Granting no license means others using your code in any way is copyright infringement, which individuals don't need to care about, but makes it something no business of any significant size will touch. How do individuals get your code? How do they install it? Copyright matters to most distribution mechanisms. A good many small businesses (not just those of significant size) would be reluctant to breach copyright. I think if you want to do that use a license that allows non-commercial use or use by businesses below a certain size.

ndriscoll 2y ago
If you build a business on a fork of someone else's project, you can't really complain. Using GPL was the cost of starting from that base. Individuals get your code from you or each other. I don't doubt that you'd have easy to use packaging if "Source available + All Rights Reserved + casual piracy" caught on as a copyleft "license"; the *arr software sort of demonstrates that already. That it only allows people who are not reluctant to break copyright laws to use your software is exactly the point. It's a proper anarchist's copyleft license.
- graemep 2y ago
  > If you build a business on a fork of someone else's project, you can't really complain. Using GPL was the cost of starting from that base. I agree - but that is what people like the Wordpress developers are complaining of. > Individuals get your code from you or each other. I don't doubt that you'd have easy to use packaging if "Source available + All Rights Reserved + casual piracy" caught on as a copyleft "license"; the *arr software sort of demonstrates that already. I am very cautious about installing things not from either distro repos (on my desktop) or from a known app store (not necessarily the OS developers) on mobile. How would people know that was your intent? If they get the software from each other, how could they verify it did not have malware inserted. One of the things I like about FOSS is that it can be forked. If the original developer stops working on it (especially if they stop applying security patches), or to take it in a different direction, or if the original developer changes licence for new versions (the equivalent with your idea would be to start enforcing the copyright). > That it only allows people who are not reluctant to break copyright laws to use your software is exactly the point. It's a proper anarchist's copyleft license. Its not copyleft. If people get software from each other how do you ensure that the source gets distributed? Or that people know they can get the source and from where?
  - ndriscoll 2y ago
    > If they get the software from each other, how could they verify it did not have malware inserted. Largely, they don't, just like today's sharing economy. If someone online is giving you something that you can't verify yourself (either because it's a binary or because you don't have the time/ability to understand the source), you rely on trust and reputation. Having a BSD license attached doesn't change this. If you're cautious about installing software directly from its author or from a repository of unlicensed software, then don't do it. My suggestion is to still release the source, so anyone can fork such a project under the same terms they had: any use is piracy. If the author feels someone is abusing the system/trying to restrict user freedoms by distributing only a binary, and the abuser is large enough to warrant it, they can sue them, just like with GPL. But there are no possible loopholes (c.f. tivoization) because there was never a license to distribute the software under any conditions.
    - graemep 2y ago
      > If someone online is giving you something that you can't verify yourself (either because it's a binary or because you don't have the time/ability to understand the source), you rely on trust and reputation. Having a BSD license attached doesn't change this. I only need to trust a few sources though. It is very different from getting lots of software from lots of different people. > My suggestion is to still release the source, so anyone can fork such a project under the same terms they had: any use is piracy. No they cannot. If someone forks the project the original author can sue them for breach of copyright. Forks can only exist at the whim of the original author. Of course you could give people permission to fork - this is called "giving them a license". I also wonder whether the courts might hold you have implicitly given a license by making the software a free download, or if you have made it public that this is what you have lost your right to sue (maybe something like equitable estoppel would apply). I would say it is almost certain to happen at least in some jurisdictions. > If the author feels someone is abusing the system/trying to restrict user freedoms by distributing only a binary, and the abuser is large enough to warrant it, they can sue them, just like with GPL. The author can also sue anyone else who is redistributing. How do we know that the author will do so? Essentially this gives the original author complete power over the project. You are to have complete trust in the author. You have to have this trust without them ever giving you any permission (because that would constitute a license). What is the author waits until people are dependant on the software and then decides to demand license fees, or just gets greedy and sues for breach of copyright?

ndriscoll 2y ago

If you build a business on a fork of someone else's project, you can't really complain. Using GPL was the cost of starting from that base. Individuals get your code from you or each other. I don't doubt that you'd have easy to use packaging if "Source available + All Rights Reserved + casual piracy" caught on as a copyleft "license"; the *arr software sort of demonstrates that already. That it only allows people who are not reluctant to break copyright laws to use your software is exactly the point. It's a proper anarchist's copyleft license.

graemep 2y ago
> If you build a business on a fork of someone else's project, you can't really complain. Using GPL was the cost of starting from that base. I agree - but that is what people like the Wordpress developers are complaining of. > Individuals get your code from you or each other. I don't doubt that you'd have easy to use packaging if "Source available + All Rights Reserved + casual piracy" caught on as a copyleft "license"; the *arr software sort of demonstrates that already. I am very cautious about installing things not from either distro repos (on my desktop) or from a known app store (not necessarily the OS developers) on mobile. How would people know that was your intent? If they get the software from each other, how could they verify it did not have malware inserted. One of the things I like about FOSS is that it can be forked. If the original developer stops working on it (especially if they stop applying security patches), or to take it in a different direction, or if the original developer changes licence for new versions (the equivalent with your idea would be to start enforcing the copyright). > That it only allows people who are not reluctant to break copyright laws to use your software is exactly the point. It's a proper anarchist's copyleft license. Its not copyleft. If people get software from each other how do you ensure that the source gets distributed? Or that people know they can get the source and from where?
- ndriscoll 2y ago
  > If they get the software from each other, how could they verify it did not have malware inserted. Largely, they don't, just like today's sharing economy. If someone online is giving you something that you can't verify yourself (either because it's a binary or because you don't have the time/ability to understand the source), you rely on trust and reputation. Having a BSD license attached doesn't change this. If you're cautious about installing software directly from its author or from a repository of unlicensed software, then don't do it. My suggestion is to still release the source, so anyone can fork such a project under the same terms they had: any use is piracy. If the author feels someone is abusing the system/trying to restrict user freedoms by distributing only a binary, and the abuser is large enough to warrant it, they can sue them, just like with GPL. But there are no possible loopholes (c.f. tivoization) because there was never a license to distribute the software under any conditions.
  - graemep 2y ago
    > If someone online is giving you something that you can't verify yourself (either because it's a binary or because you don't have the time/ability to understand the source), you rely on trust and reputation. Having a BSD license attached doesn't change this. I only need to trust a few sources though. It is very different from getting lots of software from lots of different people. > My suggestion is to still release the source, so anyone can fork such a project under the same terms they had: any use is piracy. No they cannot. If someone forks the project the original author can sue them for breach of copyright. Forks can only exist at the whim of the original author. Of course you could give people permission to fork - this is called "giving them a license". I also wonder whether the courts might hold you have implicitly given a license by making the software a free download, or if you have made it public that this is what you have lost your right to sue (maybe something like equitable estoppel would apply). I would say it is almost certain to happen at least in some jurisdictions. > If the author feels someone is abusing the system/trying to restrict user freedoms by distributing only a binary, and the abuser is large enough to warrant it, they can sue them, just like with GPL. The author can also sue anyone else who is redistributing. How do we know that the author will do so? Essentially this gives the original author complete power over the project. You are to have complete trust in the author. You have to have this trust without them ever giving you any permission (because that would constitute a license). What is the author waits until people are dependant on the software and then decides to demand license fees, or just gets greedy and sues for breach of copyright?